Dear Mark, My own psychedelic experiences took me into Maharishi's universe. Having rejected Maharishi's universe (and therefore the ontological fit between my experiences under TM and reality) I am forced to reject the validity [the extent to which these pantheistic experiences correspond to what really is the case] of my psychedelic experiences. There was a kind of powerful confronting intelligence behind LSDwhich exposed every weakness I had, and mercilessly demanded that I surrender up my selfhood to something larger than myself. It was all quite incredible: I felt manipulated by forces which had everything under their control, including my own free will. Eventually this experience led me to seek enlightenmentthat is, in effect, without knowing it, once I took LSD there was nothing else for me but to achieve a final spiritual deliverance. That was Unity Consciousness. Maharishi, then, was there immediately after LSD.
Now almost everyone's experiences under LSD differ. This is significant. Katy Perry's father via LSD became an evangelical Christian; most of the rest of us headed East, and found The Tibetan Book of the Dead more relevant than the New Testament. After LSD and TM we became *experiencers*; that is, seekers who judged the validity of spiritual truth on the basis of our access to it experientially. Now, for me, Maharishi produced the goodsthrough TM (and what followed) I experienced something more reliable, more consistent, more loving, more trustworthy than under LSD. But even this proved in the end to be a mirage. I therefore, Mark, look upon *anyone's* reported visions and knowledge under psychedelic substanceswhich includes Mescalineas fraught with problems. Fraught with problems as in: whatever is the intelligence behind this substance, whatever is conducting the experience, however it happens that one's consciousness comes to know and experience reality under this substance, *it is not what ultimately constitutes the nature of reality, nor what is really going on invisibly in Creation*. The link between my own LSD experience and TMand enlightenment (even though TM and Maharishi seemed so much closer to the real thing; no: THE real thing)makes me certain that, at least for me, I will not invest any final trust in what someone experiences under LSDjust as I now reject the experience Maharishi must have been having in whatever state of consciousness he was in. And he was certainly in another state of consciousness other than mere waking state. Now in going back to read what you directed me to here in this post, I am left with two experiences: (1) the world before I was born more or less conformed to the cosmos depicted in Dante's The Divine Comedyand that world happens to conform to the perceptions of Thomas Aquinas. I trust in the Catholic description of the universe before i was born: when I read the experiences of the Saints (inside and obedient to the Church) I have the most ineffaceable recognition that I am in the presence of a consciousness which is seeing and apprehending the universe the way God intends human beings to see and apprehend it. And this is the end of it for me. (2) the universe since I was born (since Monte Cassino) is *not* Dante's universe. I am not sure exactly what is going on now, after the Roman Catholic Church gave up the Ghost; but I do know this: God has destroyed whatever structure, institution, teaching, and method by which it was possible, before Monte Cassino (the Allied bomcing of this great Dominican monastery), to live in a state of grace, and to experience that life was only about the salvation of one's soul. It's not about that anymore; it's not about anything. But (I speak only for myself here, Mark) it certainly isn't about *anything* to do with what I read here in this article. I am much more certain what the universe is *not* about, than I am sure what it *is* about. I mean after the Eucharist became just plain bread and wine, and not the body and blood of Christ. People;s experiences under LSD not only vary one to another; they vary markedly even within one person (like Sam Harris for example). For me, since there is nothing ultimately reliable about anything Maharishi's experiencedor taught me (except that he made me enlightened)there cannot be, perforce, anything reliable about anyone's experiences under LSD. And besides, just as I believe there are definite and discrete intelligences behind the efficacy of TM, likewise there are intelligences behind what happens to one in taking LSD. And the intention of these intelligences is not a substitute for the intentions of the now departed (or absent) Trinitarian God. What I seek most of all is to hold within my own consciousness the intuition about how Creation was before I was born (the Catholic universe) while at the same time opening myself to how reality plays off ofnowthat former ontological context. This is how I both dogmatically and experimentally feel my way through my life. And it is the perspective behind each one of my posts. Of course I can't impart any of how I do this to other person. But I can tell (for myself at least) whether what someone is saying the universe is, corresponds with my deepest intuition and understanding, post LSD and post Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. MY connection with you is to experience Maharishi as he imprinted himself upon your nervous system. Because inside this experience I am able to apprehend Maharishi *as he really existed inside reality*, inside the reality of how the universe is now, since my birthand even juxtaposed to how Maharishi could be seen inside the frame of reference of that Old Universethe Roman Catholic universe. Maharishi's final status in Creation has not, to my satisfaction at least, been revealed. But I know I have obtained a sense of truth about myself through getting access to how Maharishi was inscribed upon your physical being. Even beyond all your intention and personal experience. Because Maharishi, as he really was/is made himself known to me in this way. Through the impressions you carry inside of yourself: that "objective vulnerability" that I have encountered in one one else. Maharishi knows that you know him. I doubt this is the case with anyone else. In that senseand I realize I am repeating myselfyou are a truth-bearer for me. Alex Grey and his Mind Parasites are no doubt the faithful representation of what some celestial intelligences engraved on his consciousnesssuch that he takes these experiences to be an objective reflection of reality. But it can't be. At least it can't be for me. Because all of my own inner first person ontology intuitively tells me: this is all ultimately unreal, Robin, and a mockery of Dante's universethe real universe. What really determines how I see thingscontra Alex Greycan be found in those interminable (for most FFL readers) posts between me and Curtis. I appreciate your thinking of me, Mark. Robin --- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > Did you get to the part from The First Apocalypse of James where it talks > about those who are from the Fallen Sophia? > > On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:55 PM, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > Hey Robin, > > Have you read this? > > I thought it might interest you. > > http://www.realitysandwich.com/Alex_Grey_Mind_Parasites > > Perhaps others, as well. > > Sorry if it's already been posted here, I haven't been keeping up. > > > > Mark, > > > > Nice to hear from you. I did give the article a fair readingbut broke off > > well before the end. > > > > It does not address my experience, although I understand how you could > > imagine it being of interest to me. > > > > It's not something I have yet been able to make understandable to others, > > but when I read about someone's spiritual experiences I immediately find > > myself registering the degree of realness that I feel in this. It may be > > presumptuous of me, but it is as if, after getting myself outside of my > > enlightenment (or my purported enlightenment) and my mystical love for > > Maharishi, I have been given in my first person ontology, the intuition to > > sense how much of what is being said corresponds to reality (or to 'the > > real'). > > > > Now I realize that 'reality' is a notoriously difficult concept to apply in > > some objective and empirical way. But although of course there must be > > *something* in all this, I found myself unable to trust in the ultimate > > truthfulness of these visions. > > > > Compare this to how you write about your experiences of Maharishi. > > > > The sense of the real there was unmistakable. > > > > >
